So it begins...GTA5.

[Thoughtful_Salt]

Well here we go, the perfect reviews are in. on metacritic we have (as of this post) 4 perfect scores and one 90 (courtesy of Jim Sterling). I want to ask a question, since the GTA4 garnered about the same level of critical praise, how long will it be before everyone starts to see through the veneer and call the game out for its flaws?

Having not played the game I can have no opinion of it, but given GTA4's startling fall from grace and the rather hilarious "flawlessness" of Bioshock Infinite, I can make an educated guess that this game will at least get nitpicked to death sometime in the near future.

No game is perfect.

 

[MisterShine]

I want to ask a question, since the GTA4 garnered about the same level of critical praise, how long will it be before everyone starts to see through the veneer and call the game out for its flaws?

This is why I'm not going to get it til' its on a Steam sale, if ever. I caught the Hype-bug for GTA4 (I loved all 3 of the GTA3 titles), and I was hugely disappointed. At first I assumed if I had just read some reviews beforehand I could've prevented this but... 97 on metacritic? What?! Yeah... clearly my tastes aren't in line with most reviewers anymore.

For those who've hopped on the hype train, I hope it's as great as it looks, but it wouldn't surprise me terribly if it isn't.

 

[RicoADF]

Well I'm about to start my copy up so if you'd like I can answer any questions you have on the game (it's 12:38am 17/9/13 here, just got back from midnight launch)


Notes as I install and play (PS3 special edition version):
- Currently installing, 8.4GB required (Completed)
- Controls feel good, it's got a more RDR feel to the gun fights, less of the ridged feeling of GTAIV.
- Setting, the game looks amazing, both graphically and aesthetically. It feels like a remake of San Andreas in a lot of ways. Sofar I have just been in the city and honestly it does really feel like an actual American city. I was even having some flash backs to my trip in the states, very well made in this regard.
- Features, Just as above it's got the San Andreas features returned, already I'm seeing the tow truck to make money (and if you want to make a train of tow trucks), RPG like features on the characters and a CJ like character. They could have called this San Andreas 2 and it'd have fit perfectly.

I'll keep adding as I play today and tomorrow.

 

[Pink Gregory]

It's not a terrible thing for a game to be flawed, the pursuit of a flawless game is pointless. Therefore I really don't see why it matters if someone believes that a perfect game exists.

Also, I know it never really stops, but who wants to bet how quickly the ol' 'BAN THIS SICK FILTH' banner goes up on this'n? Seems like the characters are a little more nihilistic in this instalment than any other.

Not that the press could pick up on anything like social satire or context.

Whatever, I thoroughly enjoyed GTA IV.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

Of course no game is perfect. Why should GTAV be any different?

That being said, is it really your place to piss on other people's parade? People are excited, and have been looking forward to this game for a long time. It's a little early to be condemning the game for its inevitable flaws just because GTAIV was a rather large disappointment, isn't it?

You could have at least waited a week or so. Let people have fun and form their own opinions, first.

[sub]Myself included.[/sub]

 

[tilmoph]

It's kind of inevitable; Skyrim got praised as the best thing ever for a while, then as time went on, people started feeling a bit of repetitiveness to the some of the quests, the lack of any deep characters, basically, things started to get noticed as the shiny newness wore off. GTA4 went through the same thing, KoTOR gets called out for not being as fun to some people, some people just straight up don't like the Fallouts 1 and 2 or BG 1 and 2 (the heathens).

So, I figure you'll hear some small griping and see some "whats so great about GTAV?" posts in about a week or so, picking up steadily for about a month, then recurring anytime it goes on sale, as people like me who don't buy games at full price pick it up after the hype's died down and some start wondering what the hype was all about to start with. It could very well be very fun for many people, but that doesn't mean people, even ones who still like the game, won't find things that they dislike about the game, wearing some of the shine off.

 

[krazykidd]

So people equate perfect score with perfect game ? Oh lawd . If that was the case there would be no perfect scores ever .

Here's a question . If every game is getting 9 and 10. Does that make 9 the new average?

OT: focus less on the score and more on the review

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Here's a question. If every game is getting 9 and 10. Does that make 9 the new average?

8-9 is indeed average by the present gaming media review standard. 9-10 is good, and 7-8 is poor. Anything below 7 might delete your system files or give you cancer.

And the truly sad thing is that this isn't even mildly hyperbolic. You'll find the odd reviewer willing to go outside the 7-10 scale and actually use the entire 1-10. They are inevitably attacked as "trolls" looking for page views.

OT: Port GTA V to the PC and I'll begin to give a shit. I certainly won't be paying full price for it whatever the case, though. Not after the janky snoozefest that was GTA IV.

 

[shootthebandit]

Runs like arse though, framerates are dog, screen tearings and characters just look shit.

why do people always say this? (usually PC gamers). surely it doesnt effect the game itself. everyone said this about GTAIV (PS3) and it never effected the game for me

 

[krazykidd]

Here's a question. If every game is getting 9 and 10. Does that make 9 the new average?

8-9 is indeed average by the present gaming media review standard. 9-10 is good, and 7-8 is poor. Anything below 7 might delete your system files or give you cancer.

And the truly sad thing is that this isn't even mildly hyperbolic. You'll find the odd reviewer willing to go outside the 7-10 scale and actually use the entire 1-10. They are inevitably attacked as "trolls" looking for page views.

This is interesting ( i'll admit that i knew the answer before asking that question ). However , surely many people have caught on to this . Does no one care? Or is there nothing to be done about it .

Then again , scores are subjective, and what makes a "good" game is very ambiguous . I mean i find it very hard to believe an AAA game could/should be less than an 8 . I'll tell you why.

Take most AAA games . Tons of money are pumped into one game . This money is to ensure ( in general )the game looks stellar(graphics/aestetics/design) ,functions (controls/gameplay) and sounds amazing ( sountrack/actions). That , in my opinion , on its own , warrants an 7-8 out of 10 . Because everything works and looks and sounds good ( again this is in general ). What's left is if a game is fun/enjoyable . That however is HIGHLY subjective . Things like story and enjoyability ( read: fun ) of a game varries from person to person . It would be unfair for a reviewer to give a game a lower score because they themselves didn't personally enjoy a game . Despite everything else working and blending perfectly .

Now of course this doesn't apply to every single AAA game . Because obviously they can fail in certain departments. This also doesn't necessarily mean that a game needs to spend crazy amount of money to make a good game worthy of a high score .

But i do think 8-9 is " average" by the definition of the word . So many ( AAA) games are so high in quality, that 8 has no choice than to become the "average".

 

[josemlopes]

I honestly dont believe the game is 10/10, like you said no game is perfect but I believe that its probably a good game with no big noticeble flaw.

The thing that annoys me in some reviews (even the ones with big scores) is when they go all personal with their review, like in the example of Gamespot's review with gems like:
"Politically muddled and profoundly misogynistic"
"Characters constantly spout lines that glorify male sexuality while demeaning women, and the billboards and radio stations of the world reinforce this misogyny, with ads that equate manhood with sleek sports cars while encouraging women to purchase a fragrance that will make them ?smell like a *****.?"

Its like people dont even know the meaning of what a satire is.

It really shows that they were expecting something that catered to each of theirs expectations and desires. But I guess they are entitled to it, right?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Then again , scores are subjective, and what makes a "good" game is very ambiguous . I mean i find it very hard to believe an AAA game could/should be less than an 8 . I'll tell you why.

Take most AAA games . Tons of money are pumped into one game . This money is to ensure ( in general )the game looks stellar(graphics/aestetics/design) ,functions (controls/gameplay) and sounds amazing ( sountrack/actions). That , in my opinion , on its own , warrants an 7-8 out of 10 . Because everything works and looks and sounds good ( again this is in general ). What's left is if a game is fun/enjoyable . That however is HIGHLY subjective . Things like story and enjoyability ( read: fun ) of a game varries from person to person . It would be unfair for a reviewer to give a game a lower score because they themselves didn't personally enjoy a game . Despite everything else working and blendingperfectly .

Now of course this doesn't apply to every single AAA game . Because obviously they can fail in certain departments. This also doesn't necessarily mean that a game needs to spend crazy amount of money to make a good game worthy of a high score .

But i do think 8-9 is " average" by the definition of the word . So many ( AAA) games are so high in quality, that 8 has no choice than to become the "average".

I have a friend who would agree with you. Production values are very important to him.

I have no particular bias for or against high production values. If an AAA game has sterling production values but utterly turgid game play or a hackneyed story, or is riddled with bugs or appears to have been launched half-baked, I'd have no hesitation slapping a miniscule score on it. I'd also have no problem giving a highly polished and entertaining indie game with wee production values a glowing score.

The problem with the gaming industry almost universally gifting huge scores to huge games, often completely independent of those games actually meriting them, is the illusion of impropriety. Whether or not you personally believe reviewer X or reviewer Y is on the take, there is an extreme conflict of interest afoot when 100% of a given site or publication's ad revenue and income is coming from the industry they are meant to be critiquing. Even if we didn't have situations like the Jeff Gerstmann scandal offering concrete evidence that something shady was afoot, the conflict of interest alone would be sufficient to take a dim view of everyone's journalistic integrity.

Ultimately gamers have to find reviewers they trust, and listen carefully to what they have to say.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Ultimately gamers have to find reviewers they trust, and listen carefully to what they have to say.

That's how it's been for ages. Or at least, SHOULD HAVE BEEN for ages.

I remember waaaayyy back when I read about EGM's highly negative review of Total Recall (rightly so) and Acclaim threatening to pull all ads if they didn't play ball. That moment I realized the bloody obvious, about how big the conflict of interest was between a magazine and publisher ads.

So now, I treat most professional game reviewers* as I treat the evening news: Bias to the point where I can't trust what they say, but perhaps amusing as a source of entertainment for a moment.

(*not critics, because by far, most reviews are completely lacking in actual critical thought both good and bad)